Weekly review: 2nd – 5th July 2011

Common intention constructive trust (in England)

Where there is an intention to create a common intention constructive trust but it is not possible to discover the intention as to quantum then the role of the court is to impute an intention by reference to what is fair having regard to the whole course of dealing between the parties (Aspden v Elvy).

Common law estoppel

‘But the rule of law is clear, that where one by his words or conduct wilfully causes another to believe the existence of a certain state of things, and induces him to act on that belief, so as to alter his own previous position, the former is concluded from averring against the latter a different state of things as existing at the time.’ (Lord Denman CJ). (Pickard v Sears).

Recovering payments made when there is a dispute as to whether they are due or not

Payments made in respect of a disputed liability are voluntary and cannot be recovered either directly or as damages representing part of a loss (Grundt v The Great Boulder Proprietary Gold Mines LtdDixon J).

Resulting trusts

Where title is is put into B’s name but A paid the purchase price the onus shifts to A to show that no gift was intended where the property was bought as a family home (Tang Kim Kwan Patrick v Lee Chi Ting Karen).

Resulting trusts: presumption of advancement

The presumption of advancement still applies as between father and son in Hong Kong but the aim is always to discover the true intention of the parties (Wong Fu Cheung v Wong Pui Hung Peter ).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: